As I was saying, this gentleman would be constrained to oppose the amendment, Mr. Chairman, because if we are going to have this thing, I oppose it, but if we are going to have it, then give the President the total prerogative. By establishing this limitation, why not do it in other areas?
Debating an amendment related to presidential prerogatives.
Share
More from Ronald Dellums
I believe the gentleman is absolutely correct, he has beefed up these provisions and I think appropriately. I would be more than happy to work with the gentleman in the context of the conference to move it in the direction of the…
The gentleman knows for over a decade, the quarter of a century I have been here, I have never tried to impugn anyone's integrity. It was not designed to challenge the gentleman. I am always prepared to debate on the substance. I thank the…
Significant philanthropic efforts are under way at the Presidio where sizeable pledges have been made to the National Park Service. In addition to the potential threat to philanthropic interests, it would be difficult for the Presidio…
It would place a limit on U.S. costs for handling the expansion of NATO to 10 percent of the total cost, or $2 billion, whichever is lesser, for fiscal years 1998 through 2010. With respect to background, Mr. Speaker, Congress, the House…
Other voices in this conversation
